This paper will deal almost entirely with the conference held
at PSU on Friday April 25, 2003 and was composed from my notes taken during the
keynote and the panel discussion.The
paper will contrast markedly from my two previous essays which were more
theoretically oriented.

The paper will cover broadly, yet concisely, the following
topics:The role of history for
feminists—that is the creation of individuals’ proper history and the history
created through the publication media (in newspapers, etc.).The anti-academic sentiment expressed by many
activists because of the role academics play in taking the writing of history
out of the hands of the people and the exclusion many activists experience
because of their non-academic backgrounds.The emphasis many feminists place on what I will call personal
issues.Some of the consequences of this
emphasis are: a tendency to avoid conflict; emphasis on creative activities not
analytical ones; how age and maturity affects personal views, e.g., the
progression of the idealism of youth to the pragmatism of maturity.The effects that geography and culture have
on feminist culture and activism.And,
the relationship between feminism and activism, with or without say opposition
or resistance.That makes five topics.

Several women at the conference were very clear expressing
the idea that women’s history was central to the advancement of feminism.The logic behind this in part was that if
they didn’t write their own history, that it would be misrepresented by
historians and that if it were misrepresented then the struggles of the
individuals and the groups wouldn’t have gone towards preventing history repeating
itself for future generations of women.By writing their own histories they would be exercising their agency as
participants in their own histories.One
woman emphasized that history-writing must not rest solely in the hands of
academics.The writings of women should
be submitted to the archives or published, thereby being archived in the
Library of Congress.I see the market
for such feminist memoirs as prohibitively limiting.There was a general anti-academic sentiment,
particularly considering the policy mentioned that an activist could not work
in a shelter without a degree, even if her experience far surpassed many
degreed people.

One implication of this for some subset of women present was
the premise that “The knowledge I know is all that I need.”This has disturbing implications for an
audience that was self-educated.Some
were high-school drop-outs.Many
considered themselves “bookish.”But
this bookishness was directed towards self-understanding, self-realization, and
a sort of self-help.Feminism seems an
outlet for the intellectualism of many women with informal educations.The ones with more formal educations, or who
have worked in a man’s world more extensively have a different approach (among
the limited sample of panelists).

Is feminism a result of a minority mentality?Does it work in opposition like many
counter-culture movements; does it have counter-cultural aspects?What of the fact that females are not a
numerical minority?One speaker posited
that the power structure wherein the majority rules the minority could only
work if “the majority oppressed the minority to create a state of amnesia.”This line of thought was closely allied with
the idea that women, or other minorities, need to create their own history so
that “they can know where their predecessors have come from, in order to get a
sense of what it [the future] will be.”

The emphasis on non-traditional educations has some
justifications and implications.In a
way they are valid: one can learn a great deal about life and the lives of
other women—which has clear educational value in an empirical sense.Following our original definition of
feminism, that is “the idea that the male power structure is changeable,” some
people think this definition can be effected only through learning about women
who have done it, changed the power structure, thereby showing that it is
possible.There is an intrinsic
relationship between anti-academic feelings, personal issues, and activism in
general.For one, life experience is clearly
an advantage for activist work counseling people, particularly when this
counseling is based on experience gained through life.Is counseling as activism valid?Certainly many counselors also are activists
and carry one aspect of their lives over into others.See the professionalization of activism
discussion in the last paragraph.

Being accepting and inclusive is both desired and
impossible.For example you can’t have
an S&M enthusiast at the same table with another woman who is not such an
enthusiast.This over-inclusiveness
extends to avoiding confrontation even in extraordinarily uncomfortable
scenarios: psychotics who are “accepted” and not booed.The particular anecdote that comes to mind is
an individual psychotic at the conference who stood up, introduced herself as a
graduate of the Women’s Studies program at PSU, complained that she hadn’t been
given an opportunity to speak, introduced herself to one of the panelists
saying, “I’ve been in your home,” and proceeded to read a lengthy poem at the
podium while the audience exchanged uneasy glances.If something similar happened at a conference
I attended (with an off-the-street admittance policy), of young males, I think
people would say screw this and try to get the person to step down.Then again, unless it were a poets’
convention, instead of hackers’, I can’t imagine a young male who would be
reading his poem in front of an audience, except in jest, before giving a
technical talk.This is the same stale
dichotomy of females being encouraged to be creative and males being encouraged
to be good at talking shop.Participants
in such organizations might be advised to adopt a more confrontational stance,
yet confrontation is in many cases contrary to an idea of proper gender-based
non-confrontational etiquette.

Younger people are of course more idealistic.Their friends are also more important in
their lives, and they are often interested in helping out with the problems of
their same-gendered peers.Older women,
particularly after menopause, are more cognizant of dropping or blending the
gender roles of both men and women—the way it was described was that
post-menopausal women feel more connected with the Earth, and less connected
with their sex drive, while men can’t stop it short of a heart attack.

Communication is one of the skills most needed by feminists
and activists generally: the people who can speak are listened to.If you believe the publicity leads of one of
the largest ad companies in the world, Saatchi & Saatchi: “What the new
economy needs is people skilled in organization, emotion, and networking
skills, and guess who is most skilled at all of these, women.”I guess women are doomed to be networking in
feminist organizations.

One woman also emphasized the advantage putting theory and
practice together afforded. In Berkeley, with day jobs or studentships, they
were able to divorce themselves from any patriarchal funding structures.This woman and her friends were able to work
autonomously, but not as separatists.They theorized profusely, writing up propaganda and by-laws for the
Socialist Revolution.Socialist
Revolution is a topic well-suited to students’ idealism around the world.Eventually through the course of her activism
she had come to grips with the ideas her sometimes younger, sometimes older
colleagues hadn’t—that it is impossible to overcome sectarianism in any
group.Her group of friends in the
Socialist Feminist movement had criticized males for their politicizing and
sectarianism.However, when women in the
Socialist Feminist movement from different parts of the country got together at
a conference, she realized that women also
were incapable of overcoming the sectarianism which prevents different groups
from coming together.

Feminism is both natural and not noteworthy.I say this because if you get a bunch of
people in the same room who have similar ideas, a common state of discontent,
and the capability to express those ideas, they will start organizing in one form
or another.The fact that women have
similar ideas as other women should make this a non-issue, right?I now invoke cultural elitism: many of the
“Barbarous Rituals” that put paid to the Powerful Sisterhood’s list of
grievances in the 1970s are distinctly American protestant Caucasian phenomena.Asian girls don’t have to shave their legs by
and large.Many western European
countries don’t have anywhere near the stigma associated with sex that America
does.Many countries like Russia or
Italy have such an educational system that if students, girls or boys, have the
talent they are institutionally “pushed” towards being scientists and
doctors.In some countries young women
are encouraged to be even cuter, more stylish, and better partners, instead of
studious and professionally-ambitious, than in America, say Japan or Hong
Kong.Between the mainstream and
subculture groups, inclusive, in America one can find similar cultural
variety.With such varied and easily-accessible
cultural choices, just pick what suits you and get on with it; why would an
enlightened feminist spend time grieving/care about their petty
circumstances?

What is activism?How
can you measure its effect short of legislation?80% of the women on the panel had done most
of their activism in the San Francisco Bay Area. This geographical and cultural area acts as a catalyst for activism.

Women in Women’s Liberation who believe that feminism is a
constant revolution got a hint of the nature of a revolutionary political
movement during the days of the active Socialist Feminist movement
(1972-ish).Many felt forever empowered
by the fact that at the height of the history of American Marxism, “ordinary
people” could run things together.“Ordinary” for the Marxists of the time meant: people from the working
classes; people who did not have a voice; people for whom the power structure
did not authorize them to speak up for their rights and act for their
advancement.

What is the goal feminists are working towards?One gets the impression that many women who consider
themselves feminists are simply searching for a greater personal
understanding.Just as some women attend
college to be happier through their educations in greater personal understanding.If it is a general framework for social work or activism, there can be
concrete results to the feminist’s efforts.For example a battered-women’s clinic would provide such an outlet.Is feminism simply an out-pouring of advice
on how to live in the world experiencing the constant critique of male
supremacy (Gordon 29)?If women’s
history is really about this, big deal—men can find their own out-pouring at
any bar stool in any Podunk town in the alcoholized world.This is not what women’s history is about—but
it provides a striking example of using a movement or the guise of activism for
individual and personal interests.The
fact that for many feminist activists these interests are personal or resentful
of past cultural or personal political grievances is an issue some more
experienced feminists have grown through.

Apathy is one thing feminism fights against.Apathy is different from ignorance; the
people with the power and the money may be very well informed and still not
care.I admit my initial reaction to
many feminist issues was that I really didn’t care.Betty Friedan can craft whatever concept of mystique women want to read and I don’t
care.One of the panel speakers
commented that protecting “gender rights, gender politics, or funding
battered-women’s homes is not important to the people with the power and the
money;” hence her struggle.

Not unexpectedly, I agree most with the woman who had spent
the most time in a male-dominated world.I think through this experience she gained a more pragmatic knowledge of
what it would mean to be a constructive feminist, and had learned to use her
sense of feminism in her paid and volunteer work.When necessary she was also able to function
with total separation from male power structures.Two of her key points were (1) that it was OK
for women to put themselves at the center of the universe thereby putting
oneself at the center of one’s own attentions.I think it is helpful to consider this while hinting that men adopt some
traditional female roles and women adopt some traditional male roles, i.e. the
standard sex-role blurring/hermaphroditism.Men don’t need to be told to put themselves at the center of things, she
was reminding the women.And (2) that if
a group accepts money for social work or activism, it has immediately forsaken
the ideology it was founded upon, and the revolutionary stance it had.The question she, at 50, was often asked by
younger women was, “How do I get involved in/get money for non-profit
work?”She emphasized the need of
activists, whatever their agenda, to be (financially) independent if they do
not wish to compromise their goals.